chapter 1 democracy and peace process: some theoretical...
Post on 06-Mar-2018
229 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
CHAPTER 1
DEMOCRACY AND PEACE PROCESS: SOME
THEORETICAL ISSUES
"Trying to understand democracy is like reaching into a black plastic bag. You can feel a farge object, but accurate description is difficult because the shape is extremely complex. In particular, it seems to jet out in two directions. On one side democracy appears as a decision-making method (Schumpeter, 1966) and as a set of political institutions that embody, to varying degrees, certain basic democratic principles, (Dahl, 1989; Beetham, 1999). On the other, we see a revival of the ancient notion of democrac_v as a civic virtue, as a way of life, as a mode of interpersonal conduct oriented to what is good for all. In other words, as an ethical ideal, (Ardent, 1973; Carter, 1973; Putnam, 1992)."
-Ricardo Blaug
1.1 Introduction
This chapter analyses different perspectives on democracy. It tries to explore the
democratic process and its various institutions. Simultaneously the link between
democracy and peace has been explored so that why peace process is necessary to resolve
the problems of democratic discontent can be analysed in a wider framework. Indian
democracy has been scrutinised from various dimensions. The points of view of different
scholars have been taken into account to evaluate the success or failures of Indian
democracy. The democratic discontent prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir has been
explained as one of the outcome of the fundamental paradox of Indian democracy, as
increase in political mobilization in the absence of political institutions has resulted in
insurgency in the state.
20
1.2 Representative Democracy
The common dictionary meaning of 'democracy' appears to be "self-government"
or "rule by the people". Power is derived from the authority of the people. Seymour
Lipset was one of the first commentators to provide a definition of democracy by giving a
special emphasis to procedures. He defines it as a procedure guaranteeing majority rule
and minority rights. Democracy (in a complex society) is defined as a political system
which supplies regular constitutional opportunities for changing the governing officials.
It is a social mechanism for the resolution of the problems of societal decision-making
among conflicting interest groups. It permits the largest possible part of the population to
influence these decisions through their ability to choose among alternative contenders for
political office. This definition implies a number of specific conditions: (a) a "political
0 rl fonnula", a system of beliefs legitimizing the democratic system and specifying the units
.....a (::4' like parties, free press and so forth which are legitimized; (b) one set of political leaders -l in office; and (c) one or more sets of leaders, out of office which act as a legitimate f opposition attempting to gain office.'
Henry B. Mayo identifies four principles for a system to be democratic: (1)
Popular control of policymakers (2) Political equality (3) Effectiveness of political
control or political freedoms, and (4) Majority rule. He defines a democratic polity as
"one in which public policies are made on a majority basis, by representatives subject to
effective popular control at periodic elections which are conducted on the principle of
political equality and under conditions of political freedom."2
1 Lipset, Seymour Martin (1959), "Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and
Political Legitimacy" American Political Science Review, 53( 1 ): 69-105. :'Mayo, Henry B. (1960), An Introduction to Democratic Theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
21
While discussing the form of democracy Joseph Schumpeter remarks, "The
democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in
which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the
people's vote." The role of the people in a democracy is to produce a government or else
an intennediate body which in tum will produce a national executive or government. He
says, what distinguishes democracy from other fom1s of government is not what rulers
are supposed to do or how they come to be rulers. The crux of the matter is the selection
of the supreme makers of law and policy. It is easier to discover whether rulers get their
authority by competing for the people's vote than to discover whether they use it to give
effect to the people's will. The competition must, he analyses, be 'free competition for a
free vote' .3 In the opinion of Plamenatz, there is democracy where rulers are politically
responsible to their subjects. There is political responsibility where two conditions hold:
where citizens are free to criticize their rulers and to come together to make demands on
them, to win support for the policies they favour and the beliefs they hold; and where the
supreme makers of law and policy are elected to their offices at free and periodic
elections. The criteria for determining whether these conditions hold are not easily
defined.4
3 Schumpct<:r, Joseph (1950), Capitalism, Socialism and De111ocracy, New York: Harper and Brothers Publishers, p. 269. In the Schumpeterian model of democracy, the figure of the politician is not simply a political 'producer' who reacts to existing demand but a political entrepreneur who does not cater to existing demands but creates new demand by supplying new policies. He fulfills a role in the political process similar to that of an orator or statesman in the Aristotelian and sophistic n{)tion of Greek democracy. He has used the analogy of the entrepreneur to iII urn in ate the role of the political leaders in the process of political will-making. According to the concept of the political entrepreneur, politicians in Down's rational (utilitarian) model of democracy are simple 'producers' who satisfy the existing demand. Andras Korosenyi (2005), "Political Representation in leader Democracy", Government and Opposition, 40(3): 358-378. 4 Plamenatz. John (1973), Democracv and Illusion, london: Longman Group ltd.
22
Democratic institutions serve as channels of transmitting and receiving messages
and feedback from the general population and governing dites. Institutions come into
existence as concrete manifestations of needs and desires of the population. David Held
argues that the effective participation ofequally free citizens who engage in public life to
form their likes and preferences, to express reason for supporting one action rather than
another and to debate them in the appropriate public arena constitutes one of the basic
institutional requisites of a democracy.
Further enlightened understanding of the processes and events of the political life
with adequate and equal opportunities along with all the knowledge needed to examine
and affinn their choices on any matter creates another condition for the better functioning
of the political system. Citizens should also have the authority what matters are and are
not on the public agenda, subject to conditions and constraints imposed by the public law.
It also requires that every citizen should be assured that his/her judgement will be
counted as equal in weight to the judgements of other citizens at the decisive moments -of
collective decision making. In addition the political processes should ensure that all
citizens are secured with equal rights in the society along with the right to vote and
contest any post open to the electoral process.5
A measurement of democracy sensitive to the extent of popular control must be
based on principles that lead to higher levels of control. Zehra F. Arat has identified these
as; Participation, inclusiveness, competitiveness and civil liberties:6
Participation - the component of participation includes measure of the extent to which
the popular consent is sought in selecting people for the decision making offices.
5 Held, David ( 1995), Democracy and the Global Order, Cambri-dge: Polity Press, pp. 207-210. 6 Arat, Zehra F. (1999). Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries, Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers. pp. 23-26.
23
Inclusiveness of the process - Even when popular consent is sought in selecting
representatives, the process of selection may still be -closed to segments of the population.
Restrictions may be imposed according to gender, race, education, property etc.
Competitiveness - The competitiveness of the political system refers to the extent to
which the electorate is provided with choice.
Civil liberties or government coerciveness- ~ecause of lack of reliable information on
the extent to which governments recognize and respect civil liberties. Thus, the equation
for measuring democraticness is:
Score of Democraticness = Participation + Inclusiveness + Competitiveness -
Coerciveness
So, if we define democracy as the freedom of the ruled to choose their rulers at
regular intervals, we have a clear definition of the institutional mechanism without which
democracy cannot exist. No popular power can be described as democratic if it has not
been achieved or renewed by an act of free choice. Nor there can be democracy if a
significant proportion of the ruled do not have a 1ight to vote.
1.3 Democracy and Civil Society
Many scholars argue that democracy exists when there is a political space that· can
protect citizens' rights from the omnipotence of the state. So, this definition contradicts
the idea that there can be a direct correlation between people and power. Democracy
exists when the distance between state and private life is recognized and preserved by
political institutions and the law. Democracy, in the views of Alain Touraine is not
24
reducible to procedures because, it represents a set of mediations between a unitary state
and a multiplicity of social actors. The basic rights of individuals must be guaranteed.
\\tbat is more important is that individuals must feel that they are citizens and must
participate in the construction of collective life. 7
He further says, the two worlds of state and civil society must remain separate but
they must also be bound together by the representativity of political leadership. The three
dimensions of democracy- respect for basic rights, citizenship and the representativity of
leaders are complementary. It is their independence that constitutes democracy.
The first requirement of democracy is that rulers should be representatives of the
people. This implies the existence of social actors and of political agents who are
representatives. Moreover, civil society is made up of a plurality of social actors so
democracy cannot be representative unless it is pluralistic. All democrats reject the image
of a homogenous society and agree that the nation is a political figure rather than a social
actor. A political society that does not recognize the plurality of social actors and
relations cannot be democratic, even if the government or party in power insists that it
has the support of the majority.8
The second characteristic of a democratic society is that voters are and regard
themselves as citizens. The freedom to choose rulers is meaningless if the ruled are not
interested in the government and if they feel no sense of belonging to a political society
but merely to a family, a village, a professional category etc. the government is often seen
as belonging to a world that is divorced from the world of ordinary people. As the saying
goes 'they do not live in the same world as vve'.
7 Touraine, Alain (1997), What is Democracy? Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 26-29.
8 Ibid.
y _)
Thirdly, freedom of choice cannot ·exist if there are no limitations on the power of
rulers. Their power must be limited by both the existence of elections and more
concretely by respect for laws within which power can be exercised. In sum, the
representation of interests combined with the limitation of power within a political
society provides the most accurate definition of democracy.
Scholars like Luckham, Goetz and Kaldor have distinguished democratic
institutions from democratic politics.9 The distinction between democratic institutions
and democratic politics parallels the distinction between fonnal or procedural democracy
and substantive democracy which was originally introduced by De Tocquivelle. Formal
democracy refers to institutions, procedures or routines of democratic systems.
Substantive democracy refers to the redistribution of power, the degree to which citizens
can participate in the decisions which affect their lives. 10
This distinction is significant because according to David Beetham even inside
the fonnal structures of democratic institutions, all forms of politics are not democratic.
Democratic politics require not only political contestation but that contestation should
also be tempered by certain basic moral and political principles which include popular
control over governments and political elites and political equality among all citizens.
Democratic institutions have been created to meet many goals like - to enable
participation either directly or through elections, to avoid tyranny by autocratic rulers, to
promote open and fair competition for power on the basis of the popular vote, to ensure
9 Luckham, Robin, Anne Marie Goetz and l\bry Kaldor (2003), "Democratic Institutions and Democratic
Politics" in Sunil Bastan and Robin Luckham (eds.) Can Democracy Be Designed: The Politics Of Institutional Choice In Conflict-Torn Societies. New York: Zed Books. 1° Kaldor, Mary and I. Vejvoda. "Democratization in Central and East European Countries'', International Affairs, 73( I): 59-82.
26
the accountability of governments and to provide a forum for rational discussion of
political problems or conflicting social interests.''
Democratic politics practices aim to hold democratic institutions to their
democratic promise by the following: 12
l) Ensuring open and effective challenges to governments and their policies .through free
and fair elections,
2) Increasing citizens' participation at all levels of political authority,
3) Ensuring fully inclusive citizenship based on respect for gender, cultural and other
differences,
4) Providing accessible procedures through which rights and entitlements can be
guaranteed, and
5) Maximising the accountability and transparency of the holders of political power and
bureaucratic office at all levels of government.
Democratic politics is broader than the processes of political contestation.
Democratic politics thus depends upon a culture of participation, an active civil society, a
pluralistic media, competing political parties etc. through which all citizens can, if they
want to acquire a political voice. It is through democratic politics that governments and
democratic institutions acquire legitimacy and are made accountable to their citizens.
Democratization is not just a process of implanting formal institutions of liberal
democracy, but it's a project of norm creation and cultural change. Democratic
11 Beetham, D. (1994), "Conditions for Democratic Consolidation". Review of African Political Econom_v, 21(60): 157-172. 1:' Ibid.
27
institutions can create incentives for democratic politics. They can also build conditions
to resolve problems of inequality and conflict. 13
Democratic liberalism is a system in which individual and group liberties are well
protected and autonomous spheres of civil society and private life exist. A vigorous civil
society enhances not only accountability but also the representativeness and vitality of
democracy. A dense network of autonomous voluntary associations and mass media is
necessary to scrutinize and check state power. They also enhance legitimacy of
democracy by providing new means to express political interests, by increasing the
political awareness, efficiency and confidence of citizens and recruiting new political
leaders. 14
1.4 Participatory Democracy
Democracy or what Robert Dahl tenns "polyarchy" denotes a system of
government that meets three essential conditions. 15 Meaningful and extensive
competition among individuals and organized groups (especially political parties) for ail
effective positions of government power, at regular intervals and excluding the use of
force; a highly inclusive level of political participation in the selection of leaders and
policies, at least through regular and fair elections such that no major social group is
13 Arat, Zehra f. (1999), Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries, Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp. 23-26. 14 Diamond, Larry (1990), "The Paradoxes of Democracy", Journal of Democracy, 1(3 ): 48-66. 15 Dahl, Robert (1971), Polyarchy: Participation And Opposition, New Heaven: Yale University Press, pp. 3-20, Jan Srzednicki also points out, the democratic perspectiv.e is: (a) of representative government. of responsive government and (b) the government by the people and the elective government. These express the widespread idea that the political organizations, its leaders and its institutions should be geared towards serving the people and its objective should be to satisfy their wishes and to meet their demands. Srzednicki, Jan ( 1987). The Democratic Perspective. Political and Social Philosophy, The Hague. Netherlands: Martin us Nijhoff Publishers, p 3.
28
excluded; and a level of civil and political liberties freedom of expression, freedom for
the press, freedom to form and join organizations sufficient to ensure the integrity of
political competition and participation.
Different models of democracy have maximised different goals. Broadly, a
distinction can be made between popular or direct models of democracy for which
Athens is the paradigmatic example and liberal representative models for which U.S
Constitution is the reference point. The liberal representative model put far more
emphasis on institutions than the Athenian model. In the liberal model tyranny was to be
avoided by control of the executive assured through the separation of powers. Individual
rights were given primary importance. Citizens enjoyed rights to security, private
property and liberty, but primarily as individuals rather than as members of groups or
communities. 16
Twentieth century democracy brought a contradictory fusion of the institutions of
the liberal state with the politics of participatory democracy. It is the product of the two
overlapping historical revolutions which established 'modem' politics. The first was the
bourgeoisie revolution and second was the political mobilization of the broad mass of
citizens. As Huber and others have argued that, this second democratic revolution not
only increased citizens' involvement in the affairs of the government, but also expanded
the concept of citizenship itself to cover economic, social as well as political
entitlements. It introduced the idea of social democracy not as an alternative system of
16 A rat, Zehra F. ( 1999). Democracy and Human Rights in Developing Countries, Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp. 23-26.
29
rule to liberal democracy but to ensure the responsiveness of the latter to the demands of
social justice. 17
The degree to which democracy is actualized in a community is not detem1ined
by its formal structures. That structure may or may not be instrumental in realizing the
processes of decision-making that are genuinely participatory. Carl Cohen says, processes
are 'goings-on' and democratic. processes are a certain sort of' goings-on'. This is why he
asserts democracy is never complete, never accomplished. It is a way of doing things and
that way is more or less fully actualized in the doing. Indeed, a healthy democracy will be
constantly experimenting with its fonns to create instruments for promoting more
genuine participation. Democracy is government by the people, in the sense that people
and members of the community participate in the detem1ination of policy for the
community as a whole. Democracy is constituted by participation which makes
democracy possible. 18
1.5 Processes of Democratisation
Fukuyama in his work The End of History and the Last Man says, there are three
historical stages of political development - First stage is of liberal democracy which is
based on consensus politics and a rejection of extremism. It is synonymous with
passionless, low temperate politics where mass politics wiH be marked by possessive
individualism, consumerism, materialism etc. Second stage is of growing sense of mass
alienation, futility, anomie disillusionment, restlessness, loss of identity and individual
pride. In the third stage, people may tum to old style ideologies, conflict and battles. He
li Huber, E., D. Rueschemeyer and J.D. Stephens (1997), "The Paradoxes Of Contemporary Democracy: Formal. Participatory And Social Dimensions", Comparative Politics, 29(3): 232-242. 18 Cohen, Carl (1971 ). Democracy, Georgia: University of Georgia Press. pp. 4-5.
30
further says, by 1990 a worldwide consensus has emerged which considers liberal
democracy as the only legitimate form of government. Liberal democracy is the only
viable alternative in modern world.
The post cold war period has been proclaimed as one signifying the triumph of
liberal democracy and market capitalism to such an extent that he calls it 'the end of
history'. This is because according to him ideological differences have ceased to exist
and the world is well on to the path of attaining Hegel's ideal world where all needs are
satisfied. 19 Liberal democracy would provide consensus politics and reject extremism. It
also provides a viable alternative in conflict situations.
A democracy is a compound of institutions of a modem state and institutions of
mass participation and representation. The creation of a stable and established democracy
is thus the result of two separate processes - modernization of the state and
democratization of participation in goveming the state. The sequence in which countries
develop a modem state and introduce democratic elections has differed radically between
waves of democratization.20
Democratization involves the installation and consolidation of the democratic
regime. It is a complex phenomenon involving various stages and has no standard route.
Samuel Huntington in his celebrated work The Third Wave talks of three reasons why
democratization is important. The first reason is that it enhances freedom of the
19 Fukuyama, Francis (1992), The End Of History And The Last Man, New York: Free Press Maxwell Macmillan International. He says, liberal democracy may constitute the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the final form of human government and as such constitutes the end of history. The last man is essentially the victorious slave who has successfully struggled for freedom and self-esteem. He is pessimistic about present and future spiritual and political well being of citizens. After liberal democracy, there are no big issues to fight for and only possessive individualism, materialism, consumerism and selfabsorption will be there in a life that is without passion or struggle. ~0 Rose, Richard and Doh Chull Shin (2001), "Democratization Backwards: The Problem Of Third Wave Democracies", British Journal of Political Science, 31(2): 8-30.
31
individual. Second, it provides for channels of expression of opposition and dissent and
the third reason, which is related to the second one, is its impact on international relations
in the form of democratic peace.21
Countries in the first wave, such as Britain and Sweden became modem states
before introducing competitive elections or before democratizing participation in
governing the state. They established the rule of law, institutions of civil society and
horizontal accountability to aristocratic parliaments first. Democratization followed in
Britain as the government became accountable to Members of the Parliament elected by a
franchise that gradually broadened until universal suffrage was achieved.
Second wave democracies are characterised by the breakdown of the initial
attempt at introducing free elections and later getting success in the second round.
Germany and Austria were modern states by the First World War, but the introduction of
universal suffrage in 1919 was followed by the breakdown of democracy in these
countries. Some second wave democracies showed persistent difficulties in following the
process of democratization. For example after the Second World War, Italy and Greece
introduced new democratic regimes before establishing institutions of a modem state.
Greece subsequently had a military coup and the Italian democracy has been challenged
from both left and right.22
Third wave democracies have begun democratization backwards. Free elections
and accountability of the government to the electorate is introduced before the institutions
21 Huntington. Samuel P. (1991 ), The Third Wave: Democratization In The Late Twentieth Century, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, pp. 28-30 2 ~ Huber, E .• D. Rueschemeyer and J.D. Stephens (1997). 'The Paradoxes Of Contemporary Democracy: Formal. Participatory And Social Dimensions", Comparatil·e Politics, 29(3): 232-242.
32
of a modem state are fully secured.23 The governors of these new democracies thus face a
double challenge of completing the construction of a modem state while competing with
their critics in free elections. These democracies did not establish basic institutions as the
rule of law and civil society before introducing free elections and they have yet to
complete the process of becoming both modem and democratic states. The Republic of
Korea, the Russian Federation and the Czech Republic have shown democratization
backwards.24
In fact a successful transition and consolidation of democracy takes place when
three interrelated changes are in evidence:
(1) When not significant actors, groups or organizations spend time or resources to create
non-democratic alternatives or advocate separation;
(2) A majority of population believes that democracy is the only way to govern collective
life;
(3) Conflict resolution is done through established laws, procedures and institutions of
d . 25 emocrat1c processes.
23 Elklit Jorgin and Palle Svensson (1997), "What Makes Elections Free And Fair?" Journal of Democracy, 8(3): 32-46. 24 Huber. E., D. Rueschemeyer and J.D. Stephens (1997), "The Paradoxes Of Contemporary Democracy: Formal, Participatory And Social Dimensions", Comparative Politics, 29(3): 232-242. Rose and Shin analyze most third wave countries are currently incomplete democracies as they have democratized backwards. Incomplete democracies can develop in three different ways: in completing democratization; in repudiating free elections and turning to an undemocratic alternative; or falling into a low-level equilibrium trap in which the inadequacies of elites are matched by low popular demands and expectations. 25 Ruthermend, Diet mar ( 1997), "Conflict As A Challenge To Legitimacy: A Historical Perspective" in S.K. Mitra and Dietmar Ruhermund (eds.) Legitimacy and Conflict in South Asia, New Delhi: Manohar Publishers, p.I2
33
1.6 Democracy and Peace
The presence of short-lived governments is taken as evidence of poor
performance in democracies and in other systems as well. Political order means the
absence of tunnoil and violence and the maintenam:e of the basic forms of the democratic
regime. G. Bingham opines that almost all regimes and certainly the democratic ones
seek to limit violence and disorder. Widespread violence is generally accepted as a sign
of failure of the democratic process. 26
Democracies have a very special relationship to political conflict. Most other
types of regimes either forbid any expressions of serious disagreement or allow them
only through very powerful leaders. Legitimate efforts to influence policy by those who
are outside the ruling circle are limited to petitions and suggestions.27
The norms of peaceful co-existence among democracies can be traced to
Immanuel Kant who enunciated liberal peace in his book Perpetual Peace in 1795.
Peaceful ways of resolving conflicts domestically are seen as morally superior to violent
behaviour and this view has been transferred to international relations between
democracies. He envisioned a world peace rooted in democratic processes through the
implementation of three definitive articles. First, he says democratic constitutional
governments would usher in moral autonomy of individuals' representative governments
"6 PowelL G. Bingham JR (1982), Contemporary Democracies, Participation. Stability And Violence,
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 12-21. ='
7 Ibid, p. 13. Powell corroborates that 'democracy from this perspective is a gamble that discontent can be channeled through the legitimate electoral channels. An outbreak of serious collective violence in a democratic society is manifest evidence that the regime is not performing well'.
34
and separation of powers with an appropriate balance between individual freedom and
social order. It will establish internally peaceful sovereign polities.28
The second argument envisages a pacific union of sovereign polities desirous of
maintaining and perpetuating the peace. Perhaps they could enter into non-aggression
pacts to strengthen peace among them. The pacific union will gradually expand to cover
the entire group of democratic states. The third article calls for a common law among
states in order to ensure a mutually advantageous policy of honouring the rights of the
foreigners. It implies rights and duties which must be accepted if people are to learn to
tolerate each other's company and to exist peacefully. Kant argues that perpetual peace
will be guaranteed by the ever widening acceptance of these three articles of peace.
A culture of peace is intimately linked with a culture of human rights and
democracy. Peace cannot be preserved if the basic rights and fundamental freedoms of
individuals or groups are violated and where discrimination and exclusion generate
conflict. Therefore, the protection of human rights and the promotion of a culture of
democracy which imply the formation of well informed, democratically minded and
responsible citizens, become important elements in the construction of internal and
international peace. 29
Initiation of peace becomes necessary in conflict ridden situations to create a
sustainable peace environment. The term sustainable peace refers to a situation
characterised by the absence of physical violence; the elimination of unacceptable
political, economic and cultural forms of discrimination; a high level of internal and
~ 8 Doyle, Michael W. (1983 ), "Kant, Liberal Legacies and Foreign Affairs", Philosophy and Public Affairs, 12(3 ): 205-35. "9 Rotferd, Adam Daniel and Janusz Symonides (1998), "Introduction: A Cooperative Security System and
a Culture of Peace" in Peace. Security and Conflict Prevention, SIPRI - UNESCO Handbook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 6-9.
35
external legitimacy and support and a propensity to enhance the constructive
c . f n· 3o transtormahon o con 1cts.
The most important pre-condition for establishing a sustainable peace is the
presence of an effective communication, consultation and negotiation system at different
levels and between the major stakeholders. Further, the establishment of a series of peace
enhancing structures are necessary for sustainable peace. First of these structures is the
establishment of a consolidated democracy second, is an effective justice system, third is
a social, free market system and fourth structure is the education, information and
• • 31 commumcation system.
An important distinction should be made between negative and positive peace.
Negative peace simply denotes the absence of war. An alternative view to this realist or
real politik perspective is one that emphasizes the importance of positive peace. Positive
peace is more than the mere absence of war or even absence of inter-state violence. :It
refers to a social condition in which exploitation is minimized or eliminated. There is
neither overt violence nor the more subtle phenomena of underlying structural violence.32
Negative peace is thus a more conservative goal as it seeks to keep things as they
are (if the waris not taking place), where as positive peace is more active and bolder as it
implies the creation of something that does not cun·ently exist Supporters of positive
peace uniformly agree that a repressive society, even if it is not at war should be
considered 'at peace' that tolerates outbreaks of domestic violence on a widespread level,
despite an absence of violent conflict with other nations, is really not at peace with itself
30 Reychler, Luc (2001), "From Conflict to Sustainable Peace Building" in Luc Reychler and Thania Paffenholz (eds.) Peacebuilding: A Field Guide, Boulder. Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, pp. 3-15. 31 Ibid. 3
" Barash, David P. and Charles P. Webel, eds. (2002), Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp.6-9.
36
Positive peace is not a static state but a dynamically conceived mm of
international and national communities. The indispensable values on which a positive
peace can be built are- justice, human rights, democracy, development, non-violence and
a peaceful resolution of conflicts.33
The former Secretary General of United Nations, Boutros Boutros Ghali rightly
said, 'a culture of democracy is a culture of peace'. The mere existence of political
processes and institutions is not enough to sustain their strength and vitality. Norms of
democrf}tic culture are necessary for their successful working. The strength and longevity
of democratic institutions depend crucially on the civic culture.34
Building a robust civil society is therefore postulated as a pre-condition for
democratization and democratic consolidation. In fact the correlation between 'civil
society' and democracy may be spurious as both the phenomena are being shaped by
deeper social processes related to modernization and individualism. 35
Atul Kohli is of the opinion that introduction of democracy to a developing
country exacerbates political conflicts over the short to medium tenn. Extrapolating from
western experience, they expect democracy to be a solution to existing rather than a
source of new power conflicts. In the west, democracy evolved over a long time. Political
competition and suffrage expanded slowly within the framework of centralized authority
33 Ibid. Many cultural and spiritual traditions have identified political and social goals that are closer to positive peace than negative peace. The ancient Greek concept of eireinei denotes harmony and justice as well as peace. Similarly, the Arabic salaam and the Hebrew shalom connote not only the absence of violence but also the presence of well being, wholeness and harmony within oneself, and among all nations and peoples. The Sanskrit word shanty refers to not only peace but also to spiritual tranquility, just as Chinese noun Peng denotes harmony and the achievement of unity from diversity. In Russian the word mir means peace, a village community and the entire world. 3-1 Diamond, Larry (1990), "The Paradoxes of Democracy", Journal of Democracy, 1{3 ): 48-66. 35 Sardamov, lvelin (2005), "Civil Society and the Limits of Democratic As~istance" Government and Opposition, 40(3), 379-4{)2.
37
structures at the apex and growing pressures from below. So, in this sense democracy in
the west was indeed a solution to growing power conflicts in society.36
By contrast, democracy to most developing countries comes as 'imported' ideas.
He says, as these ideas are translated into democratic institutions of follower democracies
which provide new incentives for political actors to organize and mobilize, the results
over the short to medium terms are often disquieting. So, expansionary political pressures
are inherent to the design of follower democracies and will need to be accommodated.
This suggests that for strengthening developing country democracies, institutions
that genuinely devolve political and economic power will remain a pre-requisite. A
central political tendency in follower democracies will be towards the emergence of two
track polities. A democratic track will emerge in the sphere of society and polity
especially in the electoral politics and a not so democratic track in the state sphere,
especially in the areas of economic policy making. 37
The political society of many follower democracies is thus increasingly
characterized by 'too much democracy' i.e. by a variety of political, class and ethnic
conflicts.
By contrast, the state in these settings increasingly insulates itself from social
demands and conflicts and thus exhibits 'not enough democracy'. It will be necessary to
bridge the gap between 'too much' and 'not enough' democracy before these follower
democracies become institutionalized with effective political systems. Creation of new
36 Kohli, Atul (1997), "On Sources of Social and Political Conflicts in Follower Democracies" in Axel Hadenius (ed.) Democracy's Victory and Crisis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71-80. 37 Ibid. Atul Kohli says, western political models have spread to the non-west and British colonialism has left behind the legacy of democracy in several colonies. Rapid introduction of democracy has a disquieting impact on established social and cultural patterns. The spread of democratic politics undermines the authority of traditional elites. As a reaction, some groups attempt to regroup again thus it gives rise to a variety of 'reactionary movements'. In sum, as imported political models and indigenous cultural conditions interact and adapt to each other, political turbulence is ought to be expected.
38
institutions would be required that systematically devolve political and economic power
to bridge this gap.
Leaders in these settings mobilize socio-economic groups more as power
resources in intra-elite struggles and less to satisfy group aspirations. There can be
emergence of mobilized but unorganized groups that are ignored by politicians once they
have served their political purposes. This mobilization from above often attracts
demagogues who utilize populist, nationalist and etimic appeals to bolster their position
and tend to generate political turmoil periodically.38
Democracy has fared better in India, and the most important reason for this is that,
India was helped by a prolonged nationalist movement. This movement generated a
unifying ideology and patterns of organization that facilitated the formation of a national,
hegemonic political party. The emergence of the 'Congress System' after independence
had provided both the organizational pull and the rallying symbols and metaphors that
legitimized the national enterprise in the eyes of diverse populations.39 It provided a
variety of entry points for both existing and emergent groups and interests. The Indian
National Congress provided the modus operandi of the Indian enterprise in nation-
building and the 'network' through which the Indian nation reverberated.
Democracy was the most generalized ideological component of Indian polity at
the time of its emergence as a nation-state. The anti-colonial struggle was seen as a
democratic struggle and the post-colonial future was seen in terms of a democratic polity.
38 Kohli, Atul (1997), "On Sources of Social and Political Conflicts in Follower Democracies" in Axel Haden ius (ed.) Democracy's Victory and Crisis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 71-80. 39 Kothari, Rajni (1989), Politics And The People, New Delhi: Ajanta Publications, pp. 501-512. Rajni Kothari calls the emergence of the Congress Party after independence as the 'Congress System' since the Congress Party carried forward a wide ranging civilizational diversity in a single national framework. Such a system did not allow the growth of alternative political forces because the Congress represented alternative views within itself and had a method of reconciling them within its organizational framework.
39
Sumit Sarkar emphasizes the role of the Indians in shaping their own versiOn of
democracy. The British had introduced some electoral politics but hey resisted mass adult
suffrage. Adult franchise was eventually pushed forward by Indian nationalist leaders
. who were working closely with politicised Indian masses.40
Crafting a unified nationalist movement also forced Indian leaders to develop
conceptions of 'unity in diversity' that eventually led to a federal structure. To counter
the colonial 'divide and rule' politics they crafted a pragmatic, political secularism to
provide symmetrical treatment to various religious conununities. He analyses two broad
political tendencies over the first half of the twentieth century. On the one hand he
notices, some Indian leaders argued for full adult franchise, political equality for a variety
of religious communities, genuine federalism and decentralization of power.41
On the other hand, there was a significant dissent from this position which was
marked by silences on issues of adult suffrage, overtones of pro-Hindu religious politics
and a preference for a unitary, centralized state. This position preferred a more limited
democracy. These early divisions among the Indian elite led Sarkar to suggest that there
may be an elective affinity in India for democracy, secularism and federalism.
Indian democracy was also helped by the fact that Indian political society in this
early phase was not that mobilized. Elite versus mass conflict in India in these decades
was minimal. These conflicts were successfully accommodated by a federal system
which recognized linguistic communities as legitimate political components .
. Institutions and practices of democracy found considerable acceptance during the
first phase from 1950s to late 1960s, which was dominated by Nehru. India benefited in
40 Sarkar. Sum it (2001 ). "Indian Democracy: The Historical Inheritance" in Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of
india's Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23-46. 41 Ibid.
40
this phase from the presence of two very impotiant institutions - a well functioning civil
service and a popular ruling party, the Indian National Congress.42
In the second phase between the 1970s and the 1980s, numerous new elites
entered the political arena to challenge the Congress's hold on power. Indian politics,
during this phase became considerably more turbulent. After Congress's popularity
declined in the second half of the 1960s, Indira Gandhi recreated the Congress during the
1970s and the 80s as a much more populist and personalistic organ. Kohli says,
personalistic power simultaneously created a viable political centre but weakened
institutional polities.43
Identity based mobilizations statied coming up. These mobilizations were based
on language (like anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu and conflict between the Assamese
and the Bengalis in Assam), religion (as demand for Punjabi Suba) or region (as in the
'sons of the soil' movement in Maharashtra). These mobilizations took various forms like
movements for greater autonomy or statehood, mobilizations by the backward classes and
movements related to tribal identity. Ethnic conflict in Punjab and Assam was at the fore
front of Indian politics in the 1980s, while the north-east and Jammu and Kashmir have
remained more continuously troubied.44
Atul Kohli has interpreted the proliferation of political mobilization as too much
of wrong kind of democracy. He says Indian democracy is characterised by weakening of
political institutions, concentration and personalization of political power and politics and
popular mobilization without adequate resources. The gap between economic capability
~~ Kohli. Atul (2001 ), "Introduction·· in Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of India "s Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6-11 . . n Ibid. 44
Jayal. Neerja Go pal (2001 ). '"Introduction" in Neerja Gopal Jayal ( ed.) Democracy in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 24-30.
41
and political capability undermines Indian democracy. There is ever increasing popular
awareness and diminishing avenues to participate effectively in the politics with growing
accumulation of power in fewer and fewer hands. This leads to disjuncture between
popular expectations from the polity and its capacity to deliver on those expectations.
The weakening of state institutions, unable to accommodate and manage these conflicting
demands has led to a crisis of govemability.45
Similarly, Larry Diamond considers India as an unstable transitional democracy
because of the regime instability, rampant corruption, deep seated poverty, inequality and
endemic violence.46
The third and current phase which began around 1990s has been characterised by
a variety of national level political experiments to fend a substitute for the old Congress
Party rule, especially by the emergence of the Bharatiya Janata Party {BJP) and other
regional parties. This phase of Indian politics has been characterised by considerable
governmental instability.47
In recent years, the logic of democratisation has, along with other factors provided
some counter weight to the centralisation of power. Niija Gopal has identified three such
counter weights.48 The first of these is the federalization of polity which resulted in the
gradual erosion of what Rajni Kothari called 'the Congress System' and the emergence of
regional parties as strong forces. By participation in government or lending critical
~ 5 Kohli. Atul (1990), Democracy and Discontent: India's Growing Crisis of Governability, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 385. 46
Diamond, Larry (1999), Developing Democracy: Toward Consolidation, Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. p. I 25. 47
Kohli, Atul (2001 ), "Introduction" in Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of India's Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 6-11. 48 Jayal, Neerja Gopal (2001), "Introduction" in Neetja Gopal Jayal (ed.) Democracy in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 24-30.
42
political support, these pmiies have drawn attention to the regional imbalances
engendered by the centralized model of development planning.
A second democratization factor has been the revival by the 73rd and the 74th
constitutional amendments of the Panchayati Raj System. These amendments have
sought to revitalize the democratic element in local govemment by making regular
elections to the panchayats mandatory. It devolved greater decision-making power to
these bodies to determine local development priorities and allocate resources accordingly.
A third factor has been the emergence of environmental and other movements,
protesting against the dominant strategy of development. Through such movements
people have begun to demand a voice in the choice and location of development projects.
Recent years have witnessed the emergence of two trends; multitude of social movements
and the political assertions of the historically disadvantaged lower castes, primarily the
dalits and other backward classes. The newer social movements emerged as to defend
human rights and civil liberties, to protect environment, to uplift women's position in
society or to defend tribal culture etc.
The political assertions of the historically disadvantaged castes in the 1990s have
partly linked to the implementation of the Mandai Commission Report. Their rise for the
first time seriously questions upper caste domination of the public sphere. Christophe
Jafferelot says, for the first time lower caste people have started to vote en masse for
leaders belonging to their own milieu. It means that political class is changing with the
replacement of an upper caste oligarchy by rather plebeian newcomers.49 This silent
revolution has probably opened the second age of Indian democracy as the 'second
49 Jaffrelot Christophe (2000), "The Rise of Other Backward Classes in the Hindi Belt", The Journal of Asian Studies, 59(1 ): 87-107.
43
democratic revolution' convincingly argued by Yogendra Yadav. He further says, 'the
expression OBC has travelled a long way from a rather careless bureaucratic
nomenclature in the document of the constitution to a vibrant and subjectively
experienced political community'. 50
Many scholars have observed that these developments have contributed to the
deepening of Indian democracy. Myron Weiner points out that Indian democracy has
proved too inclusive which has accommodated members of lower and middle castes into
the political system. 51 By drawing the caste system into its web of organization, Kothari
says, politics finds material for its articulation and moulds it into its own design. In
making politics their sphere of activity, caste and kin groups get a chance to assert their
identity and to strive for positions.52
Democracy has been linked to development and good governance also. Without
doubt, both development and democracy were integral to the modernizing project of the
Indian state at the time of independence. India, which adopted the strategy of
industrialization led by the public sector and based on import substitution, maintained a
very modest but consistent rate of growth. India's performance has however been dismal
in the area of human development as compared to Sub-Saharan Africa. 53
50 Yadav, Yogendra (1997), "Reconfiguration in Indian Politics: State Assembly Elections 1993-1995" in Partha Chattergee ( ed.) State and Politics in India, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 177-207. 51 Weiner, Myron (2001), "The Struggle for Equality: Caste in Indian Politics" in Atul Kohli (ed.) The Success of India's Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-225. 52 Kothari, Rajni (1970), "Introduction" in Rajni Kothari (ed.) Caste in Indian Politics, New Delhi: Orient Longman, pp. 3-17. 53 Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen (1995), India: Economic Del'e!opment and Social Opportunity, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp.30-32. Dreze and Sen have noted that. despite India's relative political stability and democratic record. economic and social inequalities including gender inequality are more acute in India than in Sub-Saharan Africa. They have also shown in their findings that famines do not occur in democracies that suggest that competitive politics and I iberal rights and freedoms do at least facilitate public action against the most extreme expressions of human deprivation. Thus empirically linking democracy and development. Dreze, Jean and Amartya Sen (1989). Hunger and Public Action, Oxford: World Institute for Development Economics Research.
44
Current discourses on democratic governance in India have reflected the
broadening of the sphere of the market, on the one hand and the increase of the non-
governmental sector's activity. The new definitions of governance that have emerged in
recent years include not merely institutions of national government but also of local and
global governance. Institutions of local government (such as panchayats); civil society
organizations (ranging from social movements to NGOs, and from cooperatives to civic
associations); and private corporations as well as other market institutions are all relevant
actors in the new lexicon of governance. Governance is no longer simply equated with
civil service reform or with the application of management strategies devised in the
private sector, to public organizations. Instead there is now a greater emphasis on
participation, decentralization, accountability and governmental responsiveness. 54
The importance of civil society in India is intimately linked to the future of
democracy. One of the most important tasks of civil society in India is arguably to bridge
the gap between democracy in the formal structure of governance and the absence of the
necessary conditions for the realization of democracy.55
Ayesha Jalal has suggested a distinction between formal and substantive
democracy. Substantive democracy refers to the existence of citizens as 'active agents
capable of pursuing their interests with a measure of autonomy from entrenched
structures of dominance and privilege'. Formal democracy refers to a set of genuine
guarantees regarding political rights. 56
54 Jayal, Nirja Gopal and Sudha Pai (2001 ). "Introduction" in Ni1ja Gopal Jayal and Sudha Pai (ed.)
Democratic Governance in India, New Delhi: Sage Publications, pp. 9-11. 55 Ibid. 56 Jalal, Ayesha (1995), Democracy and Awhoritarianism in South Asia. New Delhi: Foundation Books, pp.3-7.
45
The proponents of a substantive definition of democracy argue that the
democratic project is incomplete until the meaningful exercise of the equal rights of the
citizenship have been guaranteed to all. On this account, free and fair elections, freedom
of speech and expression and the rule of law and protection to all are necessary, but by no
means sufficient conditions for a democracy to be meaningful. The project of democracy
is not accomplished by merely securing legal and political equality. It may be severely
compromised by inequalities of wealth, power and social status which deny many from
having a truly equal opportunity to influence government decisions.57
Democracy therefore should not be seen as confined to the sphere of state and
government, but also as the principle governing collective life in society. Nitja Gopal
opines that those who view Indian democracy from the procedural perspective find it to
be the world's largest democracy which has successfully voted out corrupt or repressive
regimes. But to those who view it from the substantive perspective, find it a poor
candidate for that. 58
Pratap Bhanu Mehta argues that the experience of democracy in India has opened
up numerous points of dissent, new conflicts of values and identities and a pem1anent
antagonism of meaning and interest. This gives a sense to its citizens that the Indian
society is flying off in many directions at once and the unity of all reference points seem
to vanish. 59
He says the great discontent of Indian democracy is that while the practices of
popular authorized elections, public discussion and so forth are deeply entrenched, we are
far from producing modes of governance that we could freely accept.
57 JayaL Neerja Gopal (2001), "Introduction" in Neerja Gopal Jayal (ed.) Democracy in India, Oxford: 9xford University Press, pp-3-4. '8 Ibid.
59 Mehta, Pratap Bhanu (2003), The Burden o(Democracy, New Delhi: Penguin Books, pp.3-40.
46
However, democracy's biggest triumph is that it has proven to be an effective -
perhaps the 9nly mechanism for holding India together. Democracy has both brought out
conflicts into the open and provided an effective mechanism for accommodating them.
India has worked not because of 'unity in diversity' but because we are 'diverse in our
unities', thus each one is able to imagine the connection with others in his/her own way.
Ashutosh Varshney also holds the same view, that despite of poverty, widespread
illiteracy and deeply hierarchical social structures, which are impediments to democracy,
India has been successfully maintaining its democratic institutions.60
Sunil Khilnani says, in India the idea of democracy has released prodigious
energies of creation and destruction. Within a very short time, India has moved from
being a society in which the state had a distant profile, limited responsibilities and a few
had access to it, to one where state responsibilities have swollen and every one can
imagine exercising some influence upon it.61
Lloyd and Susan Rudolph have argued that the Indian state is a 'third actor' (in
addition to capital and labour) and that its command over public authority as well as
economic resources makes it possible for the state to be a self-determining entity, acting
its own interests even as it is subject to and constrained by demands from a variety of
social groups. This, they conclude, makes it simultaneously a 'weak-strong' state.62
Over the years, Bhikhu Parekh observes, India has broadened and deepened its
political structure to accommodate new social groups and aspirations and has moved
60 Varshney, Ashutosh ( 1998). "Why Democracy Survives", Journal of Democracy, 9(3): 36-50. Anirudha Gupta also mentions that despite all the stress and violence, the democratic ethos and institutions of postindependent India have not only survived but taken root. This-constitutes a conundrum which ahs not been seen elsewhere. An impossibly fragmented society, driven by innumerable castes. tribes and communities, pulling and clashing against each other, suffer violence sometimes on limited single issues or sometimes in periodic conflict is yet united and governed largely though not efficiently by democratic means. Anirudha Gupta, "India: Democracy and Dissent" Parliamentary Affairs, Vol. 53, No. I, 2000. pp. 181-88. 61
Khilnani, Sunil (1997), The Idea of India, London: Hamilton, pp.57-59. 62
Rudolph, Lloyd and Sussane Rudolph (1987), In Pursuit of Lakshrni: The Political Economv of the Indian State. New Delhi: Orient Longman.
47
towards a participatory democracy. Still, he says, India's success has been shadowed by
its failures also. The institutions of the state have become haHowed out. The flabby and
porous state is increasingly at the mercy of pressure groups, sectional interests and selfish
and short-sighted politicians. Corruption in its crude fonn continues to distort India's
I. . I 1· fi 63 po 1hca 1 e.
As new classes and social groups constantly enter political life, they need to be
inducted into the democratic, political culture. India therefore, he says, needs to develop a
national consensus around the ground rules and basic norms of political life.
According to Sumit Ganguly, insurgency in Kashmir is the result of a
fundamental paradox of Indian Democracy. Kashmir represents both the mobilization
success and simultaneously the institutional failure of Indian democracy .... and it is in
this dichotomy, the increase in political mobilization against a background of institutional
decay that best explains the origins of the secessionist insurgency. For Ganguly,
Huntington's thesis that social mobilization and a consequently increased level of
political participation unless accompanied by robust political institutions, breeds political
instability, clearly explains the case of J & K 64.
Ganguly underlines the phenomenal growth in literacy rates and ranks of the
educated unemployed youth whose political aspirations were choked off by the decaying
political institution in the valley. The process of decay of political institutions in Kashmir
precedes Mrs Gandhi's leadership. According to him the singular political tragedy of
63 Parekh. Bhikhu (200 I), "A Political Audit of Independent India", The Round Table. 90(362): 70 I -709. 64 Ganguly,Sumit (l997),The Crisis Of Kashmir: Patents Of War, Hopes Of Peace, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p 182. He argues that given dramatic expansion literacy and media exposure, a generation ofKashmiris has now emerged that is far more conscious of its political rights and priveleges. This generation is also most likely aware of political development well beyond the valley of Kashmir and is far more politically sophisticated and knowledgable than previous generations of Kashmiris. Ganguly's thesis of increased participation and the absence of solid political institutions resulting in a political decay, holds true so far as the valley is concerned.
48
Kashmir politics was the longstanding failure of the local and national political
leaderships to permit the development of an honest political opposition. Second, the
insurgency was a result of the ethno-religious mobilization that took place in Kashmir.
He argues that Pakistan sensing an opportunity to weaken India's hold on
Kashmir funded, trained and organised a loose unstructured movement that the
insurgency was, into an organised enterprise directed towards challenging the writ of the
Indian state in Kashmir. Third, he contents that the insurgency was due to the failure of
the central political leadership in India which saw demands for political autonomy as
incipient move towards secession which ultimately drove the Kashmiri's towards more
extreme fonns of political expression. He argues that the flawed 1987 elections and
dismal performance of the Farooq Government in attending to people's problems and the
violence that the valley saw in 1988 exacerbated the situation and led to the beginnings of
insurgency from 198 9.
The strategy which Ganguly finally suggests to the Indian state as workable for
bringing an end to insurgency in the valley is that of negotiating with the insurgents and
offering them a time-bound cease-fire arrangement. He concedes that the Indian state
initiated negotiations in 1994-96. The talks did not progress as the insurgents could
neither agree on their core demands nor on the means of achieving them. He argues that
Government should strive to build trust and confidence among the insurgents which can
be done unilaterally also. Sumit Ganguly has analyzed that due to failure of political
institutions to channelize the aspirations of the people there is rise in discontent among
people which resulted in the instigation of insurgency in the valley. In order to solve the
crisis he has suggested that there should be negotiation and talks with the insurgents.
49
However Ganguly's argument is linked to the Indo-Pak dimension of the Kashmir
conflict and he does not address the Jammu and Ladakh factor at all. He also does not
take into account the deep divide between Kashmiri muslims and Kashmiri pandits that
emerged in 1990's 65
Democratic discontent prevailing in J & K is the outcome of erosion of
democratic norms in the state. Democratic institutions in the form of participation of
people in decision making machinery of the Government, providing opposition to the
Govemment and devolution of grass root level of democracy were never allowed to grow
there. At times democratically elected leaders of the state were removed through the
Central Government's intervention and democratic movements were suppressed which
increased the political vacuum between the people and the Central Government. Rising
political demands were not accommodated within an institutional framework which
resulted in the political violence.
Dialogue and peace processes are necessary in conflict ridden situations so that
democratic norms can be established to preserve the basic rights or fundamental freedom
of individuals or groups. Intra-state and Inter-state conflicts can be negotiated through
dialogue which in tum would promote culture of democracy. To establish sustainable
peace there should be effective communication, consultation and negotiation system at
different levels and between the major stakeholders. Peace process in J & K has been
started to restore the democratic norms in the state. Major stakeholders of the state have
been invited by the Government for talk. Central Govemment has invited all Kashmiri
65 Behera. Navnita Chaddha, Demystifying Kashmir. Washington,D.C.: Pearson Longman 2007, end notes.
50
militant organisations and the Hurriyat Conference for a dialogue without any pre-
condition. Views of different groups in valley, Jammu & Ladakh are taking into account.
1. 7 Conclusion
This chapter discussed vanous perspectives towards democracy. I began by
critically assessing representative democracy and the processes of democratization. I
argued in this chapter that dominant 'aggregative' conceptions of democracy, which
focus on voting and election procedures, were found inadequate by many scholars.
Instead a new 'deliberative' model of democracy has been given preference. This model
emphasizes that democracy must involve discussion on an equal and inclusive basis
which operates to deepen the participants' knowledge of issues. It looks to transform
peoples' preferences and attitudes through open and inclusive discussion in which
. . d d l 66 partiCipants are accor e equa respect.
The recent developments in the Indian polity reflect a growing preoccupation with
many paradoxes, as Myron Weiner has called 'the Indian paradox'. Though there is
sustenance of democratic political system, there has been erosion of authority that links
the core and the periphery. There has been mobilization of many groups leading to over-
politicization of society without the requisite institutional mechanisms to satisfy their
demands.67
Establishment of democratic norms which ensure protection of human rights, free
and fair elections , participation of people in decision making process are only possible in
a sustainable peace environment .Sustainable peace refers to a situation which is
66 Saward, Michael (2001) "Restructuring Democracy: Current Thinking and New Directions",
Government and Opposition, 36(4): 559-82. 67
Sandhu, Rajinder Singh and Ranjit Singh Mann (2005), "India's Discorded Democracy: A Crisis of Govemability" in Gopal Singh and Ramesh K. Chandran (eds.) South Asia Today, New Delhi: Anamika Publishers, pp. 370-379.
51
characterised by the absence of physical violence, high level of internal and external
legitimacy and a propensity to enhance the constructive transformation of conflicts. So
democratic norms can be well protected in a sustainable peace environment .Processes of
democratisation will include participation of people in decision making, protection of
individual and group liberties and accountability of the government.
Alienation in Jammu and Kashmir and discontent among people have been the
outcome of erosion of democratic norms in the state. Poor record of democracy in Jammu
and Kashmir is characterised by constant rigging of elections , lack of participatory
democracy , various forms of intervention by the central government and lack of
protection of civil liberties . Sumit Ganguly has analyzed that the roots of insurgency in
Kashmir is due to the lack of political institutions to express the aspirations of the people,
so there is a need to build trust and confidence among the insurgents through negotiation
to solve the crisis. Substantive democracy will. be incomplete until the meaningful
exercise of the equal rights of the citizenship have been guaranteed to all . Therefore a
sustainable peace process is necessary to resolve the problems of democratic discontent
prevailing in the state .
The next chapter is going to overview the historical genesis of the democratic
discontent prevailing in Jammu and Kashmir.
52
top related